Could not a computer-computerized econometric model give us a far more sophisticated appraisal of the cost benefit we are gaining from this and the trade-offs we are making without knowing we are making, than our most sophisticated executives can make now, flying by the seat of their pants, which is the way they are flying on these decisions? Mr. MOORE. I think it is possible. With my remarks about cost benefiting, I did not mean to imply that you should not ultimately try to cost benefit the other environmental factors into the construction of physical facilities.

There was a time when we did not assign a value in the lakes for example you were talking about the reservoir-we did not initially assign a benefit to the recreation aspects.

That's included now. We are analyzing, and attempting to develop the sophistication to analyze the benefit that arises from the recreation use of a reservoir.

There is a technology being developed for assigning values to benefits that were not heretofore considered, and the question is: Have we given too much emphasis to a given value, as opposed to another value?

I think it is possible to cost-benefit some environmental questions so long as you understand the first time you do it you will leave something out.

The danger with cost-benefit analysis is that people who use it decide that it is perfect, and it tends to become fixed in their minds as the yardstick they use when they measure values.

Mr. SCHEUER. Look. At best it can be a rule of thumb, more of a rule of thumb, than the half-baked measures we use now.

Mr. MOORE. And in terms of the econometric model you describe, there is probably not adequate hardware to get a given result but that's no reason not to try to develop the software, because by the time you take the bugs out of the software the hardware will be perfected.

For most regions of the country there ought to be an econometric model.

One of the reasons is the things you were talking about with regard to electric power. If we are serious about doing something about the environment, we have to accept the fact that some areas of the country should develop differently from other areas of the country.

The whole country cannot be equally developed.

Mr. SCHEUER. What is the maximum population development of Arizona? The two Udall brothers would like to see 80 percent of the population settled down there. They were pushing for an atomic energy installation on the Colorado River that would produce enough power and water to support a population in the Arizona region that, if you looked at it from the point of view of the entire national interest and what a balanced population growth would be in that area, it just wouldn't make sense at all.

Mr. MOORE. You come to a consideration we are not yet sophisticated enough to accept, and that is the entire State may someday have to try to determine what population it should support and then not admit any more population.

Mr. SCHEUER. That's right. What is its maximal population in order to enhance everybody's bundle of satisfaction, and that's when you are going to run into zero PG, zero population growth in this country.

Mr. MOORE. Yes. And the only way we can come to it is to teach it gradually. You cannot get there today.

The prevailing concept for my generation is you have to develop 100 percent of everything.

Mr. SCHEUER. More goods, more services, more cars, works.

Mr. MOORE. And this is one of the reasons we have pollution problems, because we sometimes have the concentration in the wrong places. Mr. SCHEUER. I am going to ask you one more question. You are in the field of municipal finances.

Mr. MOORE. Yes.

Mr. SCHEUER. Is your securities house a rating agency? Do you rate cities?

Mr. MOORE. No, sir, we do not rate.

Mr. SCHEUER. You invest?

Mr. MOORE. Yes.

Mr. SCHEUER. You buy securities?

Mr. MOORE. Yes.

Mr. SCHEUER. Let me ask this. What are the rating agencies that you depend on?

Do you depend on Dun & Bradstreet?

Mr. MOORE. Standard & Poor, Moody's and Dun & Bradstreet.

Mr. SCHEUER. All right. Could you see the possibility that in some future time in rating the municipal bonds of Grand Island, Nebr., or Little Rock, Ark., or New York that Dun & Bradstreet and Moody's and Standard & Poor's would include in their rating in putting, evaluating, appraising the credit of a city, that they would include in their appraisal of the bonds or long term debt of that city not only how the city is running its short, middle and long term debt management, but also how it is managing its environmental problem?

Because when you are thinking of long run or middle run, you are thinking over a term of years.

And how it is handling its waste disposal and pickup and garbage disposal and abandoned car disposal?

It is clearly going to affect the kind of people that live there, the tax base and the residential plan and the business that's going to feed off the residential plan.

Could you see a connection between how the city is treating its problems of air pollution, water pollution, garbage disposal, with the way you rate its bond tomorrow?

Mr. MOORE. I must say that's the first time I have heard that idea, Congressman, so my reaction will be sort of off the top of my head. Let me say this. The reason I am concerned

Mr. SCHEUER. The reason I say this is because all these things might affect the soundness of its long term tax base, both business and residential.

Mr. MOORE. The reason I say that, at Eastman Dillon the section in which I work is attempting to develop and finance joint municipalindustrial waste collection and treatment facilities on a regional basis.

I can see a time arriving for what you mention, but I think it will have to be by stages. I can see a time when for a peripheral city the bonding house would say, "Look, there's no real justification for you to take this debt on as a peripheral city.

"This project should be part of a major metropolitan area."

I suspect you might come to this over time in that manner. One of the things that is of concern-and I would prefer not to name cities, but one of the things that is of concern obviously is the present condition of some cities by virtue of their past history of having failed to take care of environmental considerations.

Mr. SCHEUER. This is exactly the point I am trying to make.

Mr. MOORE. Yes, and by virtue of their failure to take care of environmental conditions in the past, they now find themselves in difficulty financially because they do not have the economic or property base upon which to support their needs.

Mr. SCHEUER. If you would name a few cities you would make the front page of the News and the Times tomorrow morning.

Mr. MOORE. I have seen what happens to those who name cities. Mr. SCHEUER. I know; but this is precisely the point I am making. Just as you could name cities that cannot meet their environmental problems today because of what they did or didn't do 10 years ago, couldn't you see an effect on the tax rating structures of these cities by what they are doing today because of the way they treat their environment? What will happen? Because this will affect their ability to pay.

Mr. MOORE. Yes. Some would say they can look at the performance of a city in the environmental arena, and judge how the city is living up to its obligations in other activities. Are they looking at the cheapest way they can get by in relation to economic development? I believe business is looking in the other direction in the country because I think people are convinced what they do with the environment locally will have an impact on their image to outsiders.

Mr. SCHEUER. On their ability to attract top flight executives.

Mr. MOORE. Yes. The type of people they want to attract will not look at the wrong kind of environment, so they are looking at the political subdivisions to see whether or not they are keeping up with their environmental responsibilities.

Here again this requires an educational process developed over a period of time, so there is education and acceptance for what you are trying to do for the environment.

I have enjoyed being here.

Mr. SCHEUER. I can't thank you enough for your testimony. It's been very, very stimulating. Very grateful to you.

Mr. MOORE. Thank you.

Mr. SCHEUER. The subcommittee stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY EDUCATION ACT

FRIDAY, MAY 1, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,
San Francisco, Calif.

The subcommittee met pursuant to notice at the Morrison Auditorium, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, Calif., Hon. John Brademas presiding.

Present: Representatives Brademas, Reid, and Hansen.

Staff members present: Jack G. Duncan, counsel; Maureen Orth, special consultant, and Marty L. LaVor, minority legislative coordinator.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The Select Subcommittee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives will come to order for the purpose of further consideration of H.R. 14753 of the Environmental Quality Education Act.

The chairman wants to express on behalf of himself and his colleagues how very pleased we are to be in the State of California and in this particular location.

The purpose of our hearings today is to give further consideration. to legislation that has been introduced in the House of Representatives by the gentleman from New York, Congressman Ogden Reid, who is with us here today, and the gentleman from Idaho, Congressman Orval Hansen, who is here as well, by Congressman James Scheuer of New York and by myself.

The purpose of the Environmental Quality Education Act is to provide Federal support for a variety of activities which, the sponsors of this legislation feel, will help meet the environmental crisis to which so much attention is now being given in our country.

The bill authorizes funds for a variety of purposes, for developing materials, for teaching environmental studies, for the training of teachers to offer such courses, for the support of environmental studies, courses in elementary and secondary schools, for the support of environmental studies offered in community conferences, workshops, adult education courses which might participate, civic and industrial leaders, State and governmental officials and others.

Finally, the bill would authorize funds for the preparation of materials on the environment for use by the mass media.

San Francisco is one of the loveliest cities in the United Statesindeed of the world-but as people who are with us here today will understand better than will those of us who do not live in this area,

San Francisco shares with other great cities the same problems of dirty air, polluted water, overcrowding which are daily examples of our continuing failure to develop intelligent environmental policies. The members of this subcommittee are for strong support of legislation in Congress to help combat pollution and protect the quality of our environment, but it is the conviction of the sponsors of this legislation that we need, over the long haul, if we are to have intelligent environment policy in the United States, to have a citizenry that is both informed and educated about the whole spectrum of issues that we have come to describe as ecological or environmental.

This, therefore, is the legislation that brings us to California. We are particularly pleased to have as our first witness today a distinguished Member of the House of Representatives who is highly regarded in the Congress of the United States and who we are aware has a deep interest in the subject matter of this legislation.

He represents the Seventh District of California and is our first witness this morning. We are pleased to hear from Congressman Jeffery Cohelan.

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERY COHELAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. COHELAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you all to California. It is a great pleasure to be here today on this beautiful day in this great Golden Gate Park to testify on behalf of the Environmental Quality Education Act.

I appreciate the opportunity of coming before the committee and thank the distinguished members of the committee for affording me this opportunity.

As you know, I have long been concerned about this critical problem of environmental pollution and I am pleased that the committee saw fit to come out here to the bay area to hold hearings on this issue. We residents of the bay area know all too well the seriousness of the situation.

I want to commend my colleague and good friend, Congressman Brademas, chairman of this subcommittee, for his superb efforts in putting together a bill of such substance and quality-along with his colleagues a bill which reflects the critical nature of the total environmental pollution problem and which also espouses sensible and realistic approaches to deal with the problem.

Now, as I understand it, this bill would authorize funds for the development of materials and aids for teaching environmental studies: for teacher-training programs; for the development of new curricula in environmental quality and ecology studies for elementary and secondary schools; and for establishing programs and workshops on environmental pollution for business, civic, political and government officials, as well as for private and public organizations.

This measure is praiseworthy in its attempt to deal with this situaion. It is a significant step towards change and is noteworthy for its far-reaching possibilities and its impact.